Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Words are vehicles of thought. They are signposts of ideas. The Lord and the Spirit made arguments that turned on the tense of a verb (Matt. 22:32). Words matter (John 21:22, 13). Terms are important (Gal. 3:16). Indeed, they are so significant that one’s eternal destiny may rest upon their proper use (Rom. 3:8; 2 Pet. 3:16). Therefore, “Take heed how ye hear” (Luke 8:18). Also, “Take heed what ye hear” (Mark 4:24). In summary, “Take heed how you hear what you hear.”

The misuse and abuse of words is an ancient error. Isaiah warned, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isa. 5:20). As it was done then, so it is being done today.

Righteousness: Obey God’s Word

God sets the standard, the rule of righteousness. His pattern of purity must be followed in order for one to be regarded or reckoned as righteous. Upon what basis was it determined that Zacharias and Elizabeth were “both righteous before God”? That “they were both righteous before God” was demonstrated by the fact that they were “walking in the commandments and ordinances of God blameless” (Luke 1:6). Since “all (God’s) commandments are righteousness,” those who obey them are “righteous,” while those who do not obey them are unrighteous (Ps. 119:172; Rom. 2:8).

“And it shall be our righteousness , if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us” (Deut. 6:25). Reverse that verse: “And we shall be unrighteous, if we fail to observe all these commandments.” Hence, Luke 1:6 and Deuteronomy 6:25 define 1 John 3:7: “He that doeth righteousness is righteous.” “In every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him” (Acts 10:35).

Therefore, if one desires to appear righteous, but does not want to obey God’s word, he must find a way to alter or change that word. One way to do this is to redefine the terms. By using the words God used, but by subtilly changing their meaning, one may seem to be doing what God said. He may be declared “righteous before God” in the sight of men.

The Subtle Shift

This process is commonly used to support and sustain denominational, doctrinal deviations. From psallo (“to sing”) to baptizo (“to immerse”), words have been redefined in order to establish a false doctrine. If “singing” includes “playing on a mechanical instrument,” pianos and organs are authorized in worship. If it can be made to appear that baptism is either sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, then “sprinkling” is scriptural baptism. Further, to speak in tongues is the ability to speak a foreign language one has never learned “as the Spirit (gives) utterance” (Acts 2:4-11). However, if “tongues” are redefined as ecstatic, emotional outbursts, one may be accredited with the ability to “speak in tongues just like they did in the Bible!” Illustrations of such variations of words abound. Allow one to define the terms of the proposition, and he often can establish the truth of his position. Thus, one could practice sprinkling for baptism, play the organ in worship, and “speak in tongues,” and do it all with the authority of God Al-mighty! Most Christians are familiar with these attempts to redefine righteousness.

Modern Redefinitions Of Righteousness

Drunks and dope addicts are no longer sinners in need of repentance, redemption, recovery, and reception by the righteous. No, they are not “sinners”; they simply have a “disease,” or a “chemical dependency” tendency which they likely “inherited” through no fault of their own. Is homosexuality a heinous, horrible sin? Is it “against nature,” contrary to all standards of decency and morality? No, it is now “an alternative life style,” with no sin or shame to be attached, and if you think otherwise, you are a “mean spirited” bigot. When a young girl has a child out of wedlock, has she sinned, being guilty of the sin of fornication? No, you insensitive, hateful brute; she has simply taken up “single parenting.” When a Hollywood star fathers a child with one of his harem, has he committed fornication, and is he guilty of immorality? No, you Victorian, puritan prude, you; he has simply fathered a “love child.”

You see, folks, if we redefine the terms, anything be-comes acceptable and righteous. There is no shame and condemnation when fornication is given vindication (see Isa. 5:20 cited above). Why have homosexuals felt free to “come out of the closet?” Why are people proudly living together without marriage? It is because there is now no shame attached to those forms of behavior. Homosexuals have not become bold. No, the door was opened to their closet by those who say that “loving, committed couples” may be men with men, or women with women. When the social and spiritual stigma was removed, the immoral felt free to flaunt their depravity as those who count it sport to revel in the day (2 Pet. 2:13). All such sinners used to run and hide like a cockroach when the light is turned on, but they no longer do so. Why? Because they are now more brazen and bold than their predecessors? No, but because righteousness has been redefined, they now feel comfortable to “work all uncleanness with greediness” (Eph. 4:19). When the climate is right, one goes outside. Likewise, when the moral climate was “right,” or favorable, men brought their hidden works of darkness outside. They openly glory in their shame because they are not scorned as once they were.

How does God define “family”? “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh” (Matt. 19:5). In part, at least, a family is seen as “father and mother” and children, or as a “man … and his wife.” This is what God ordered and ordained as family. What is “family” today? A “family” today may be two men living together like maggots on a cow pile. They may force you to rent your property to them lest you be sued for “discrimination.” They may even adopt and raise children. They may be given “sick leave” from work to care for their “mate.”

What has occurred? “Family” has been redefined. Hence, two lesbian women’s relationship is now “sanctified,” and they may enjoy the blessings and benefits which have traditionally been reserved for a scriptural “family.” And who are the immoral, hate-filled, narrow minded bigots? They are people like you who would dare oppose this “loving, committed family.” Every man has become a law unto himself (Jud. 21:25). Values are determined, not by a heavenly Father, but by an earthly feeling, by what we want. Still, though, echoing down the corridors of time, there come the ringing words, “0 Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). Despite man’s cleansing of the outside of the cup and the platter, the searing words of judgment burn in our ears when the wise man saith, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12).

Adultery: Redefining Righteousness

As with baptism and tongues, if we can redefine the term, “adultery,” we can seek to make righteous that which is an abomination in the sight of God. Adultery, some argue, is simply the breaking of a marriage contract. It is not, they say, sexual sin, or unlawful sexual intercourse with the spouse of another. So, one may repent for having broken his initial marriage vows and keep the second or third wife and not be guilty of the sin of adultery. Presto! The marriage to “another” without the cause of fornication is now legitimized and authorized. The participants are as “righteous” as Adam and Eve were in their union. How did these formerly adulterous marriages achieve their righteous connotation and escape a just condemnation? Simple. “Adultery” was simply redefined. It is the same way a Catholic justifies his sprinkling, a Christian Church preacher authorizes his piano, and a Pentecostal verifies his “tongues.” Change the meaning of the terms, and righteousness has been redefined.

Never mind that Jesus said that to look and lust was to commit “adultery” in one’s heart (Matt. 5:28). (Did Jesus mean by “adultery” that one was merely tempted to break a marriage contract, or did he mean that one was contemplating sexual sin?) Forget the woman who was “taken in adultery in the very act” (John 8:3). (Was she caught in the act of breaking a contract, or in sexual sin?) Ignore the expression describing those who have “eyes full of adultery” (2 Pet. 2:14). (Were they only interested in getting a divorce, or were they intent on sexual sin?) Dismiss the fact that God will judge adulterers, those who have “defiled” the marriage bed (Heb. 13:4). (Will he judge those who have simply broken a marital vow, or will he condemn those who were guilty of sexual sin?)

Redefining Local Church Autonomy

Local church autonomy! How precious is the concept to those who love the truth, and most especially to those who have come through a long and prolonged fight to maintain it. However, one may wrest and twist the principle of “church autonomy” to make it include items that do not belong. When gospel preachers are criticized and forbid-den to preach the whole counsel of God regarding any Bible subject, lest they be guilty of violating local church autonomy, righteousness has been redefined. When gospel preachers refuse to preach the whole counsel of God on any Bible subject, and declare that they will not do so lest they violate local church autonomy, something is rotten up the creek. What has transpired? (1) A truly Biblical doctrine has been wrested and redefined; (2) The Spirit has been quenched (1 Thess. 5:19); (3) The word of God has not been allowed to have “free course” (2 Thess. 3:1); (4) The truth has been hindered (Rom. 1:18); (5) A preacher has sold out to compromise and equivocation (Cf. 2 Cor. 4:2); (6) Righteousness has been redefined, and unholy hearts and hands have profaned the pristine purity of the word of God.

Did David Lipscomb violate local church autonomy when he preached against pianos and organs in worship and demanded that they be refused? Did Roy Cogdill, James W. Adams, James P. Needham, Cecil Willis, W.R. Jones, Carrol Sutton, Connie W. Adams and an unnumbered host of others violate local church autonomy when they crossed the country, preaching and debating against the errors of institutionalism and urged churches not to contribute to “orphan homes”and Herald Of Truth? If so, someone needs to repent and apologize. If not, preaching the truth does not violate local church autonomy.

Consider this: When one says that preaching on certain Bible subjects and insisting that men conform their lives to the truth is a violation of local church autonomy, are they violating the autonomy of local churches who do not agree with their assessment? They meet themselves coming back. They are saying that churches must not put up with preachers who will preach on controversial subjects and demand that men obey the truth. When they do teach, are they not guilty of violating the autonomy of those churches that re-quire that “all truth” be taught and that all submit to it?

Men may plead for local church autonomy in preaching when they have a doctrine they do not want to have examined (John 3:20, 21). So what do they do? They simply redefine the meaning of “local church autonomy.” In this way, they seek to bar you from preaching against an error they secretly harbor, or against the teaching of an erring friend whom they endorse. Whether the issue denied in-volves morals, modesty, Mormons, marriage, or Methodism, it is another case of attempting to redefine righteousness by perverting the concept of local church autonomy. Regard-less of their motives, the result is that truth is hobbled and error is coddled when men hide behind the skirt of “local church autonomy” in order to prevent the preaching of the whole counsel of God.

As in every case cited, whether in or out of the church, men who want to retain their righteous standing, but who also want to accept some form of error, will invariably seek to redefine Bible words. To hold to their error, they must give it a “form of godliness.” They think that by redefining righteousness they are still righteous. They will fool and deceive some who will be carried away with their dissimulation (Gal. 2:14; Col. 2:8). But it is a lie; it is not “the way of righteousness”; it is not “the right way;” it is not “the way of truth,” and they will be damned who love and make a lie (Matt. 15:14; 2 Thess. 2:10-12; Rev. 21:27).

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 20-22
September 5, 1996

By Walton Weaver

To say that Jesus Christ came into the world is simply to affirm an historical fact. The manner of his coming is a much more complex subject, but Scripture itself affirms that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), and that “God was manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). We accept as fact what Scripture itself affirms about the incarnation of Christ, and make no attempt to address the more complex questions associated with that subject. Our aim is briefly to touch on the question, why? Why did Jesus Christ come into the world? And even on this question we must limit the scope of our inquiry. There are reasons for his coming that are beyond the purpose of this article. Our study will be limited to four reasons which the Bible gives for Christ’s coming into the world. Each of these pertains directly to our salvation.

To Do The Father’s Will

Jesus himself said, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38). He came to do “the works of Him who sent Me,” and yet he had only a brief time in which to do them  a period described by him as “while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work” (John 9:4). Though he did many “works” all of which were a part of the Father’s will, there was one work in particular that was to be the ultimate outcome of all of these works. The last week of his life, and in anticipation of his death, he said, “I have finished the work which You have given me to do” (John 17:4). His statement looks back upon his life as brought to a perfect end by the sacrifice of himself which he was about to make. On the cross he said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), no doubt meaning that he had accomplished the work he had come into the world to do. God had prepared a body for him that he might offer himself to God in a very special way (Heb. 10:5). This offering of himself upon the cross was the ultimate goal of all that he had come into the world to accomplish.

God did not desire the sacrifices and offerings made under the law, but he prepared a body for Christ that he might come and do the Father’s will “through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). To this end, Jesus affirmed, “I have come  In the volume of the book it is written of Me  To do Your will, 0 God” (Heb. 10:7). The Hebrew writer had already said, “who, in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death, and was heard because of his godly fear, though he was a Son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him . . .” (Heb. 5:7-9). Christ was obedient to the Father’s will in every respect. His perfect obedience qualified him to be offered up as a sin offering to God. His resolve to completely do the Father’s will is best illustrated in the length to which he was willing to go in the offering up of himself on the cross for us. Paul makes this point when he says that he “humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8).

To Reveal The Father

Christ is the only one whose testimony of the Father involved an immediate apprehension of him. He is the only one to have himself observed the Father. The very fact that he “came down from heaven” (John 3:13) enabled him to bear witness to what he had “seen” with his Father (John 5:19; 6:46; 8:38) and what he had “heard” from him (John 8:26, 28, 40; 14:10, 24; 15:15  the same was true of the Holy Spirit, John 16:13). While he was in the world the same relation which he had all along with the Father continued. He continued to be “with” the Father who sent him (John 8:16, NKJV). His judgment was true because he was not alone; it was the Father’s judgment as well as his own because his relation to the Father was such that whatever he said the Father also said. Christ’s judgment was not merely a human judgment; it was a divine judgment because of his unique relation to the Father. His judgment was God’s judgment be-cause he was one with the Father. Is this not but another way of saying that whatever he spoke and whatever he did he spoke and acted as one with the Father because his very nature required that he speak and act as one with him (Heb. 1:3)? This is what he meant when he said that he could of himself do nothing (John 5:19, 30  nor could the Holy Spirit speak “of himself’  John 16:13).

This unique relation with the Father enabled Jesus to perfectly declare the Father unto us. This was another reason for his coming into the world. John 1:18 says, “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” Again, the unique relation of the unique Son of God (lit., in the earliest manuscripts, “the only begotten God”) to the Father is what is affirmed. The words “who is in the bosom of the Father” suggest an abiding closeness between the Father and the Son. It is Christ’s intimacy with the Father while he was declaring him that is being described, and yet what is said describes what is permanently true of Christ. Alvah Hovey quotes Luke as pointing out that the “timeless present participle is here used, like the finite present in 1 John 3:3, 7, to express an inherent, permanent relation of the only begotten Son to the Father” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 69). Because of this ever abiding relation to the Father, John says that Christ is the one who has declared him or made him known. What has been declared is what Christ knew by being in the bosom of the Father. Christ had immediate and intuitive knowledge of God (John 8:55). This could be affirmed of no other. Only the Son has such knowledge of the Father (see Matt. 11:27). He alone could say when asked of Philip, “Lord, show us the Father,” that “he who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). He was declaring the Father unto us in his every word and action.

To Destroy the Works of the Devil

John says, “He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). Both Jesus and other writers of our New Testament also had much to say about this same problem and how Jesus’ coming into the world was meant to deal with it. Questions on the origin, nature and consequences of sin, on the one hand, and the nature of God and how he must deal with sin, on the other, are central to the subject of salvation and why Jesus Christ came into the world. These are not new subjects; they are not first introduced in the New Testament. From the very beginning the problem of sin was present. God’s hatred for sin had also been demonstrated again and again throughout the Old Testament period. When John affirms that “the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil,” he is simply announcing what is God’s last effort to overthrow the power sin, and what is more important, what proves to be his triumphant act in accomplishing that fact.

With the lifting up of Christ on the cross a certain judgment would be brought against this world (John 12:31a). The ruler of this world would be cast out (John 12:31b). Jesus would through his lifting up draw all men unto him-self (John 12:32). “That world remained God’s world, even though it had become disintegrated by sin and had tried to organize itself without reference to its Creator, and in con-sequence stood under His judgment. But Jesus lifted on the cross, the supreme expression of the invincible power of divine love, would draw to himself like a magnet all who accepted in faith His victory over sin and evil; and over against all such believers the world and its prince would be impotent” (R.V.G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 150). Jesus Christ and the cross is the Christian’s victory over the world. To those who are called the cross is “the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). Though Christ died in weakness, he is mighty in us (2 Cor. 13:3-4). John assures his readers that they are of God and have overcome those who have the spirit of Antichrist “be-cause He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:3-4). No Old Testament saint ever had such strong incentive to be an overcomer.

To Take Away Sins

Not only did Jesus come to destroy the works of the devil in our lives, but he was also “manifested to take away our sins” (1 John 3:5). Sin is a transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4). Sin reaps the wage of death (Rom. 6:23), or separates one from God (Isa. 59:1-2). The sacrifices of the law could not remit sins (Heb. 10:1-4) and bring sinful man back into God’s favor. A better offering was required; yet it must be a blood offering, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). The better offering was the blood of Jesus Christ. We may now be “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). “So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28). Christ “Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness  by whose stripes you were healed” (1 Pet. 2:24). We were redeemed by the “precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19). “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us …” (Gal. 3:13); God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21).

Such an offering was necessary in order that God might be just: ” . . . For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth to be a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:22b-26). All men had broken God’s law. All were lawbreakers. The penalty was spiritual death, eternal separation from God. God had allowed this condition to continue all during the Old Testament period. No provision to take away sins had been provided. The demand of the law for punishment had to be met. God sent his Son to suffer the penalty for our sins. In his death upon the cross the just demands of the law had been met. God is just in saving those who believe. Christ’s sacrifice also made provision for those under the First Covenant (Heb. 9:15). Through the provisions of the New Covenant we have the assurance that “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). The testimony of John the Baptist is, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin on the world!” (John 1:29).

Guardian of Truth XL: 1 p. 1
January 4, 1996

By Kim Dobbs

Was I, like Esther, put here “for such a time as this”? A weary heart to comfort? A skinned up knee to kiss?

Should I take the time to stop and speak to them today? Oh, it’s not that important. I’ll do it another day.

Am I the one that God expects to teach my new-found friend?

Or maybe there is someone else that he has planned to send.

Maybe there’s someone I know drowning in despair. Am I the one God’s counting on to show them someone cares?

Is there someone that I know being led astray?

Am I the one to take the time to talk to them today?

A lonely person that I know that simply sits for hours: Am I the one to call or send a card or maybe flowers?

Is there a lonely child I know that needs some special care?

Do you think God has put me here to show some loving care?

Am Ito use my influence to change some moral wrong? Yes, I think God expects me to, so now I must be strong.

I must look for opportunities to heal, to help, to save. And “if for such a time as this,” like Esther, I must be brave.

Guardian of Truth XL: 8 p. 4
April 18, 1996

By Ferrell Jenkins

Easter is a widely-observed annual celebration commemorating the resurrection of Christ. You probably have noticed that Easter comes at a different time each year. “Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon that falls on or next after the vernal equinox (March 21 in the Gregorian calendar); if the full moon happens on Sunday, Easter is celebrated one week later. Easter Sunday cannot be earlier than March 22 or later than April 25; dates of all other movable church feasts depend on that of Easter” (Webster).

The Origin of Easter

Some church historians assert that Easter observance began in the first century, but they must admit that their first evidence for the observance,,. comes from the second century (Schaff, History of the Christian Church II:207; Latourette,` A: History of Christianity, 1:137). There soon arose a bitter controversy over which day Easter was to be celebrated. Some were observing it on any day of the week, and others were celebrating it only on the nearest Sunday. This indicates that they had no instruction from the Lord on this matter. By A.D. 325 the council of Nicaea de-creed that it should be on Sunday, but did not fix the particular Sunday. The exact time of observance was deter-mined by later councils.

Is Easter in the Bible?

The word Easter is only found one time in the English translation of the Bible and there it is a mistranslation. The King James rendering of Acts 12:4 used the phrase “intending after Easter.” Albert Barnes, a noted Presbyterian commentator who wrote in the nineteenth century when the King James version was widely used, said, “There never was a more absurd or unhappy translation than this. The original is simply after the Passover. The word Easter now denotes the festival observed by many Christian churches in honor of the resurrection of the Saviour. But the original has no reference to that, nor is there the slightest evidence that any such festival was observed at the time when this hook was written. The translation is not only unhappy, as it does not convey at all the meaning of the original, but because it may contribute to foster an opinion that such a festival was observed in the time of the apostles” (Barnes Notes on the New Testament, XI, 190). The word translated Pass-over, and the one used in Acts 12:4, is pascha. It means “a passing over” and is used with reference to the Jewish festival of Passover which was celebrated on the 14th of the month Nisan. This same word is used in Matthew 26:2; Mark 14:1; Luke 2:41; 22:1; John 2:13, 23 and other places, and in every instance is translated Passover in the King James Version except Acts 12:4. More recent versions correctly use the term Passover in Acts 12:4. It is absurd to think that Herod Agrippa I wanted to celebrate the resurrection of Christ. The Scripture says that he “laid hands on some who belonged to the church, in order to mistreat them. And he had James the brother of John put to death with a sword .. he proceeded to arrest Peter also” (Acts 12:1-3).

New Testament Christians Did Not Observe Easter

The famous fourteenth edition of Encyclopedia Britannica says, “There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the apostolic Fathers. The sanctity of special times was an idea absent from the minds of the first Christians” (VII: 859). The apostle Paul warned against the observance of feast days, new moons, etc. (Gal. 4:10-11; Col. 2:16-17). Another reliable source says, “In apostolic times the Christians commemorated their Lord’s resurrection every Sunday, by meeting on that day for worship. When Paul refers to Christ as our passover (1 Cor. 5:7) his language is metaphorical and cannot be regarded as containing any allusion to a church function” (A Dictionary of Religion and Ethics 140). For many people, Easter has become the one time of the year they attend church services. Concerning urging of Catholics to receive Holy Communion the question was asked, “They must go at least once a year if they would be regarded as Catholics?” “Father” Smith answers, “Yes, during Easter time” (Father Smith Instructs Jackson 159). Many forget the admonition of Hebrews 10:25: “not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near.”

Importance of the Resurrection of Christ

Let no one imagine that we oppose the resurrection of Christ. It is the bedrock of Christianity and the deity of Jesus rests upon it (Rom. 1:4). Christians today meet every first day of the week, as did the early Christians, to observe the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). The first day of the week is a memorial to the resurrection of Christ. The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ serves as the form of an individual’s death to sin, burial in baptism, and resurrection to walk a new life as a new creature in Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom 6:3-11; Col. 2:12).

Conclusion

“Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). The celebration of Easter began too late, and without the expressed authority of God!

Guardian of Truth XL: 8 p. 1
April 18, 1996